The eternal feminine

Since prehistory, man-woman relationships have never been in such a psychotic state as they are today in the West. Those neophytes to the subject who have not read anything could start by means of an academic reading (Roger Devlin) or a crude reading (MGTOW). But here I would like to approach a question: How to treat women in the darkest hour for the white race?

Visitors to this site will be familiar with one of my guidelines for the priest of the fourteen words: ‘Speak only with Aryan males’. That does not mean that it is impossible to communicate with any woman. Visitors know that this site regularly quotes Catherine Nixey’s book about the destruction of the Greco-Roman world by Christians. Also, in the forums that defend the West there are a few women who also represent the exception that confirms the rule. A directive is only a directive, not an iron rule.

But in general terms it is almost impossible to communicate the most serious issues with the bulk of the female population. It is obvious that they come from Venus and we from Mars, and their PC Operating System is not exactly compatible with our Macs. That does not mean that we despise them. It means that the yin is not the Yang but its complement. I will explain it through my personal philosophy.

As some visitors know, I have written two thick autobiographical volumes (and I am writing the third one). Day of Wrath, the English translation of selected chapters of those two volumes, is partial in one respect. The translations are texts that appeal to the left hemisphere of our brain, texts that men are capable of understanding. But the autobiographical part of my two volumes is missing in Day of Wrath because it appeals to the right hemisphere. Those are texts in which women understand me better (and this site is for Aryan males).

No man among those to whom I have given them manuscripts from my first volume, Hojas Susurrantes, has understood me. But I’ve received very good feedback from a couple of women. With men I cannot communicate heart problems for the simple reason that they have not developed their soul well.

Years ago I mentioned the concept of the eternal feminine in this site and in the previous incarnation of The West’s Darkest Hour but did not explain it because it is a numinous feeling rather than an intellectual concept. A male balanced in yin and Yang could decode the double helix, Mars and Venus, from my books written in the language of Cervantes. But not everyone has developed his soul (among white nationalists, Tom Goodrich is the exception). Anima means in Latin soul. In the analytical psychology of Carl Gustav Jung, he alludes to the archetypal images of the eternal feminine in the unconscious of a man, which form a link between the consciousness of the “I” and the collective unconscious, potentially opening a path to the Self. (To understand these concepts, see the illustrations on the anima in the illustrated book Man and his Symbols of Jung and his female disciples, or at least this diagram.)

The reason that among men we cannot communicate in matters that most concern our feelings is simple. To communicate those issues one has to cry sometimes and the feedback of s/he who listens to the tragedy must be at the emotional level, not through the cold and intellectual reason. Women can communicate with each other for the simple fact that it is common for them to touch each other, comfort themselves, cry a little and hug each other without an iota of lesbianism. But we heterosexual men cannot do that with another man (I for one even dislike my cousins wanting to hug me in public). Men can talk about very abstract issues, but communicating alone with a friend about intimate problems is not our strength.

In such parallel universes are men in matters of the heart that, when a man in deep depression tries to speak out with his best friend over the phone, the typical friend without empathy or genuine compassion tells him such idiotic thing that he is shocked when, a couple of hours later, he learns that the depressed friend has just committed suicide. It’s a story I’ve heard more than once.

So the nuclear content of my two books has not appeared on this site, nor will it appear. I know from experience that a tragedy becomes a non-tragedy in the ears of Neanderthal men because they have not sufficiently developed the soul that Jung talked about. In plain English, since we straight men cannot touch ourselves and cry as women do, we cannot communicate our most serious existential problems among ourselves. That is why Schopenhauer was correct in advising us to have a woman as a confidant of such problems. The stronghold of women, Schopenhauer observed, is the compassion that, according to the philosopher, is the highest of human virtues. Therefore, since the middle 1990s I have had a female friend with whom I can communicate the yin content of my mind. It is not recommended to be romantically involved with this confidant because that would cloud the relationship into other venues.

Now let’s go to the opposite case. Compassionate women, in general terms, are unable to understand the cold reasons of the manly intellect. Few have a developed animus. Animus means, in Latin, mind, intellectual powers or courage. In Jung’s analytical psychology, he alludes to the archetypal images of the eternal masculine in the unconscious of a woman, which form a link between the consciousness of the “I” and the collective unconscious, potentially opening a path to the Self. (Again, to understand the concept see the illustrations on the animus in Man and its Symbols.)

Given that the bulk of women do not have a developed animus, it is useless to make them dizzy with lots of Jared Taylor-type statistics on race realism. We have to tune into their wavelength. Bear in mind that I have been communicating with the aforementioned woman for a couple of decades, and I can say that Schopenhauer was right: I see things that she cannot see, and she sees things in life that I am unable to see.

All the intellectual content of the white nationalist forums is useless when talking to women, especially if they come from the left (the left perverts the natural compassion of white women). The priests of Lane’s words should only try to communicate something that appeals to their vanity, say: If I am in favour of the ethnostate it’s simply because I don’t want your beauty to disappear (through miscegenation). For these words to have a certain weight on the female in question, there may not be any romantic interest involved in the priest who pronounces them.

The italicised words above could even become a mantra, and it is the only thing that the priest of the 14 words is advised to say to the opposite sex, in case one of them challenges us to an intellectual discussion. Regarding Jung’s psychology I could philosophise a little saying that the ‘Absolute’ of Schelling and Hegel resonates with the Jungian ‘Self’ and, from the Faustian point of view, only the understanding of the eternal feminine will lead the white race to the Absolute.

Published in: on February 18, 2019 at 12:01 am  Comments (13)  

13 Comments

  1. Good points. Men only respect strength. Women are more tolerant of fragility. I could argue that this tolerance is part of their survival strategy, but, they are nurturers, first and foremost.

    Intelectual women have dirty cards in their sleeves. Preserving Aryan beauty is usually countered with “beauty is subjective” or “mixed children can be beautiful too”. I know I’m playing handicapped (I’m a privileged white male), so I can’t go on the defensive. Always on the attack: “Blacks are the most domestic violent; Blacks are the most cheating and abandoning types; Mixed children have the most health issues”.

    I’ll comment more later.

    • By “intellectual women” I take it you mean “The Jew”. Right?

    • I am not saying that we should try to reason with leftist women. Most of them, if they are young and pretty, will connect with the 18-word mantra above. If one of these beautiful and young girls happen to say “beauty is subjective” or “mixed children can be beautiful too” that means she’s in the terminal stage of self-hatred, twisted mind and suicide. The point that I am trying to make is that we should never try to use even the best of the arguments with them. The mantra does not appeal to reason: it appeals to the woman’s vanity. It is not meant to be said in public but in private, imagining a conversation like the one above between Edward and Elinor but with the real actress (as in real life, Emma Thomson is a radical leftist).

  2. White Nationalism will NOT attract the majority of young White females, because this whole thing is terrifying. It’s not FUN. Factual reality is terrifying. I’m glad to see a handful of White males are just beginning to realize that disdaining and insulting women is not the most effective way to promote White existence.

    • This morning I had to pick up from my mother’s home this painting that my father copied from the original in a Spanish magazine for Catholics forty years ago, depicting the apostles Peter and Paul (now it hangs in my bedroom).

      Mother told me she felt hurt when I talk about the inferior IQ of blacks “because Christ said that everybody is equal”. (Yes: I violated the priest’s guideline by trying to communicate with her and a surviving sister!)

      Who do you blame the most: the kike Paul who wrote that Corinthians egalitarian passage or Western man who embraced such words with fanatical fury? I know that you blame Jewry a lot but they are a mere symptom of white sins as Codreanu said with his metaphor of mosquitoes—kikes—and swamps—Aryan sins.

      What the Christians at the forum of Occidental Dissent, where you comment, got to understand is that their sins have been empowering Jewry from millennia. Yesterday I quoted Völkisch Folklorist in my Twitter account: “Trust no one who is actively working to keep the Abrahamic mind cage of psychological control in place”. If Folklorist is right you shouldn’t trust Wallace, Fr. John, Nemo et al at OD.

      • I certainly blame the Whites who embraced and have embraced the Jews scam called “Christianity”. Fr John is a very bad joke. Spahn and Chris and I make fun of idiots like that. Nemo comes across as a shill/subverter. I think he’s that damned rabbi that Hunter kicked off the site ages ago Hunter. I do trust him. I met him in person years ago. He’s a Southerner. Do you have any idea of how fiercely dedicated Southerners are to Kristinsanity?

        Talk about fanatics… I’ll bet they’d make your Mother look like an atheist! Hunter is very intelligent, obviously – but it’s still very difficult to overcome the emotional attachment, and insane cultural re-inforcement, to everything you’ve known since birth. Especially when there is no social re-inforcement. I am a Heathen—but I practiced alone. I’d have to move to a city to participate in ceremonies.

    • The big difference between Hunter and I is that both had abusive parents that almost drove us mad, but I healed my psyche through autobiography and he still has to go across the path in the Tarot’s Moon toward the towers of wisdom: one tower about his own tragedy (he has not written what happened to him the previous decade) and the other tower about his parents’ religion. If he doesn’t settle accounts with his parents, as a good Christian he will continue to transfer the idea of benign parents onto the Jewish god.

      The towers are together at the other side of the path. Once you assimilate the wisdom in both and dare to criticize your parents, you can finally say to yourself having in mind the parental introject (Christianity): Let it go.

      By the way, Hunter Wallace has mentioned several times my grotesque first day in London in 2014. (He omits that, with £2000 in my pocket as a tourist, after that day I simply visited Scotland, met Arthur Kemp, BNP members, a London Forum meeting with Jez Turner and a couple of the most radical racists in the UK.) Wallace and others completely misunderstood why I recount such embarrassing anecdote. They are unfamiliar with the Austrian writer I’ve quoted more than once:

      Autobiography is the hardest of all forms of literary art. Why, then, do new aspirants, generation after generation, try to solve this almost insoluble problem?

      [For a] honest autobiography […] he must have a combination of qualities which will hardly be found once in a million instances. To expect perfect sincerity on self-portraiture would be as absurd as to expect absolute justice, freedom, and perfection here on earth. No doubt the pseudo-confession, as Goethe called it, confession under the rose, in the diaphanous veil of novel or poem, is much easier, and is often far more convincing from the artistic point of view, than an account with no assumption of reserve. Autobiography, precisely because it requires, not truth alone, but naked truth, demands from the artist an act of peculiar heroism; for the autobiographer must play the traitor to himself.

      Only a ripe artist, one thoroughly acquainted with the workings of the mind, can be successful here. This is why psychological self-portraiture has appeared so late among the arts, belonging exclusively to our own days and those yet to come.

      My bold type above.

      • @Denise:

        By “intellectual women” I mean both kikesses and brainwashed White women. A better term would be Betrayed White women. Betrayed by their Baby Boomer forefathers. To these men, Life begins, and ends, with them.

        I agree with you. Women can’t be blamed. Protecting the tribe is the task of men. We have been betrayed into believing the tribe does not need protection, that we are safe behind the walls of modernity.

        Xtian morality let the enemy inside, and is now locking the gates shut. It’s us, overmen, who must break the siege.

        The sin of gold over blood is a spiritual disease that will kill most of the White race. Worry not: the survivors will be more resistant to this disease, and the race will replenish anew, restarting the cycle. Perhaps, with a higher percentage of White overmen in the world, the Fourth Reich will be victorious the next time around.

        @CT:

        Reading your post made me realise I may be too left-brained. The quest for masculinity may have distorted communication skills. I may be using an imbalanced mix of fact and feeling, event and emotion, when expressing myself. I can’t fathom confessing my soul’s content to a woman. I may consider reading Whispering Leaves before Day of Wrath.

        On proselytising: In my case, it’s my “atheist” father who can’t stand my bashing of the blacks. I have failed repeatedly in waking him up. Ironically, my mother, who is an Xtian, is more aligned with race realism than my dad is!

        I won’t waste time converting my family. It’s redundant. Reality will bring them over to my side, eventually. I may be the black sheep of the family today, but I may become the shepherd tomorrow.

      • If you want a signed copy of my book, let me know.

      • C.T – I understand. Re: your entry into London – good for you. If you attempt to conceal certain episodes, people invariably find out, and try to use such things against you. It’s better to be “warts and all”.

      • @Mauricio – thank you for your wonderful reply. I cannot reply to directly; the “reply” runs out, on a thread, in this format. I hope you see this. Thank you, again. You are correct in every way, and you give me a shred of hope for our Race.

      • @ Mauricio,

        Women can’t be blamed. Protecting the tribe is the task of men.

        Gotta disagree. both sexes are equally at fault.

  3. @highrpm,

    On blame equality: If you have a village with good men and bad women, given time, the women will be forced to become good. With bad men and good women, the women become bad too. A people’s women are a reflection of it’s men.

    A man must shape his world according to what he wants out of life, and this includes shaping a woman into a wife or a mother (if he wants children).

    The River of Woman will flow in the direction the Mountain of Man will allow her to. Man’s nature is one of will. Woman’s nature is one of willingness.

    All of women’s failings are a result of men not knowing how to be men.

    On Ubermensch: I don’t think they have a set purpose. The defining characteristic of the Overman is the ability to transcend the values that were imposed on him, by creating new values (or rediscovering old ones), and imposing them.

    Imagine an Overman that is born in a total freakshow world: a Black Muslim Pope, a transexual mestizo President, and the big zeitgeist question is “Are Dogs People?” No matter how deceived/betrayed he is; how far removed from Natural law – the Overman’s instinctive scepticism draws him towards different values. Conformity is only temporary. He will define his own purpose, his own morality, and live/kill/die by it.

    P.S. stop socializing with blacks.


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: